Blog

Write editorials against recent restrictive intelligence directive

 
We need your intelligent minds to help us deal with an intelligence problem. On March 20, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released "Intelligence Directive 119," which creates an extremely broad restriction on employees of intelligence agencies, prohibiting those employees from having unauthorized contact with the media about "intelligence-related information." 
 

We need your intelligent minds to help us deal with an intelligence problem. On March 20, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released "Intelligence Directive 119," which creates an extremely broad restriction on employees of intelligence agencies, prohibiting those employees from having unauthorized contact with the media about "intelligence-related information." 

 

ASNE and other media organizations are employing every possible tool to get this directive rescinded or modified; one of those is the power of the pen or your favorite digital tool. We're hoping that your editorials can create enough public opposition to -- or simply bad publicity about -- Intelligence Directive 119 and that the government reverses its position on this issue. We're also hoping you can provide us with clear cut examples as to how this will hinder good reporting.

 

Many of you may note that Intelligence Directive 119 closely resembles legislation that was considered, but rejected, by the Senate in 2012: the Fiscal Year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act. Section 506 of that bill contained a similar provision, though it was actually somewhat narrower because it only prohibited engaging "background" or "off-the-record" conversations about intelligence related activities." 

 

Our concern here is that -- in fact, we demonstrated this in 2012 --  it's much easier to simply kill restrictive legislation than engineer the repeal of an agency directive. No vote was required to pass this, and there is no straightforward mechanism to repeal it. We have to convince the DNI or someone higher up in government (probably only the president in this case) to do an about face. 

 

If you feel strongly about this, please editorialize against this directive. ASNE and other members of the Sunshine In Government Initiative have compiled a list of arguments demonstrating the problem with this Directive, including:
 

  • It explicitly goes far beyond a policy of protecting sources and methods to bar discussions of intelligence "activities" and "judgments" even though these conversations keep the public informed of policy choices facing any administration and oftentimes form the basis for public opinion regarding the course of action the U.S. takes in the face of global events and challenges.
  • It bars unapproved conversations between the "media" and current government employees (except agency heads, public affairs officials or their designees) even though it is the subject-matter experts within each agency that generally provide valuable insights, knowledge of influential regional and community leaders, and other information necessary to responsibly report on foreign affairs and national security matters.
  • It includes an overbroad and vague definition of "media" that, ultimately, won't protect any information at all. Here's how: Imagine that an employee at the CIA, for instance, could discuss "intelligence-related information" with his or her neighbor (unless that neighbor is a member of the media, with "media" admittedly defined pretty expansively). That neighbor could still speak to members of the media about the intelligence-related information, who could then write stories on the particular subject with likely impunity for everyone in that chain of conversation. 
  • The content of the conversations covered by the prohibition is broad and vague, including any "intelligence-related" information, some of which is very useful to the public and necessary to keep reporters covering stories from overseas safe from harm.


It sets in place a complicated and unworkable procedure for reliably controlling who speaks to the media. Approved individuals could contact the media but have to record it.  Agencies must designate in writing the person(s) authorized to speak with the media. Employees without authorization must report unplanned media contacts. The practical impact of ICD-119 is to make it much less likely that the public will hear about policy controversies, mistakes or embarrassments that occur in any administration.

 

It does little to effectively help the media responsibly uphold the flow of information on national security and foreign affairs while responding to the need for secrecy for the sake of national security. Reporters who regularly handle national security issues are able to report responsibly by independently determining what information is important in a story only after speaking with those in the know. This policy directive pushes the relationship between the government and public too far off the foundation established by this nation's founders nearly two and a half centuries ago and ought to be reconsidered.

 

We will be expanding on these talking points in the near future to allow for an even more thorough discussion of the issues. However, several good editorials or other commentaries about this directive also exist and might help guide your thinking:
 

  • The Federation of American Scientists really "broke" the story about this Intelligence Directive 119 in a piece, which also shows why it is bad policy.


Finally, we also want to hear from you
: How will this new Intelligence Directive 119 affect your ability to cover intelligence, national security or foreign affairs issues? Concrete examples showing real-world effects are always the most useful when we try to explain to government officials why this is a bad idea and should be reconsidered.

 

Please send any such examples -- or direct any questions you have -- to ASNE Legal Counsel Kevin M. Goldberg at 703-812-0462 or at goldberg@fhhlaw.com.

Archive

Contributors